John Goldingay. <i>Joshua</i>

This commentary series takes a final-form approach, emphasizing the narrative quality, historical context, theology, and contemporary pertinence of the Historical Books. It is written by evangelical contributors for “serious students of the Bible” (p. viii).The introduction begins by stating that the purpose of the Book of Joshua, “scroll,” as Goldingay prefers, is to answer two “how” questions of subsequent Israelites: “How did we come to be in this country and to be in control of it?” and “How did the different clans come to live where they do?” (p. 1). Thus, from the start Goldingay anticipates the vexing issue of the taking of the land. The scroll answers, respectfully, “Yahweh directed us to come here and made it possible,” and “We came here by the same sort of process as many peoples come to live where they do” (p. 1). Goldingay affirms that both are valid (cf. Amos 9:7) and that Israel’s occupation of the land was typical for the ancient Near East and continues into the modern period. In world history, migration takes three forms: assimilation, colonization leading to takeover of the land, and colonialization that “extends[s] the home country’s power and wealth” (p. 3). Goldingay describes Rahab and the Gibeonites as examples of Canaanites welcoming the Israelites, but their “welcome” was arguably motivated from fear of Israel. The scroll describes a complicated settlement involving unimpeded, and occasionally genocidal, victories and stalemates (e.g., 10:1–43; 11:18; 15:63; 16:10), and ancient readers would have interpreted descriptions of the former as hyperbole.The scroll was not likely written by Joshua ben-Nun but by one or more authors, with multiple redactors who were untroubled by the tension from its depictions of the settlement as complete and incomplete. While parts of the scroll appear contemporary (e.g., 19:40–48), others presuppose the divided monarchy (e.g., 13:13) or later; still others imply the priority of Deuteronomy (Joshua 1) and Numbers. The terminus a quo of the first edition is the eighth century.Some of the scroll’s stories may be fiction, yet even those have a historical basis. The scroll best compares with a screenplay: “A scriptwriter could have the basic facts about the events and could then imagine what people might have done and said, in order to convey the reality of these events” (p. 14).The section “Reading Contexts” begins with a short reception history of the scroll. It was not moral guidance to post-settlement Israelites but a source for identity through what God did on behalf of Israel. Goldingay identifies several correlations between the scroll and the New Testament, observing that the latter is not discomfited by the violence in the scroll, nor were Christians until modern times. Since the scroll does not seem to have served as a license for violence for the Maccabeans or the Crusaders, contemporary readers should view the violence from the scroll’s perspective rather than from a modern perspective (p. 24). A precritical reading of the scroll affirms the success of the gaining of the land, while a critical reading is troubled over the violence. A postcritical reading utilizes a third lens, namely, the entire Bible. Within Joshua, Israel engages in offensive and defensive battles, but “God takes no initiative in commissioning attacks on Canaanite cities” (pp. 26, 31). However, Goldingay overlooks texts such as Josh 1:1–9, which is tantamount to a divine fiat for the offensive warfare. Perhaps this explains his remark: “One way or another, God nevertheless affirms Joshua’s actions” (p. 26).The predominant means of conveying theology in the scroll is “narrative theology” (p. 27). God gave the Promised Land to Israel. That means he sovereignly removed its occupants—which raises the question of justice. The Bible lacks a word for the contemporary understanding of justice as “being objectively fair and treating everyone the same way” (p. 28), and “In Joshua, the devoting [חרם] was Joshua’s idea” (p. 31). This, and Rom 9:14–33, caution against contemporary judgment of violence. Goldingay remarks, “whereas God had told Joshua that he was to lead the people into possession of the country, it’s not certain that Joshua went about it the way God laid down or even that God originally intended the Canaanites to die rather than be chased out” (p. 31). However, again, texts such as 10:40 and 11:12, 20 indicate that the ban was divinely ordained. No doubt aware of these texts, Goldingay qualifies: “The implication is not that we let God off the hook by blaming Joshua, nor that we let Joshua off the hook by blaming God. Both God and Joshua work with the world as it is” (p. 31).For decades archaeology has been a crux for Joshua. Goldingay provides a three-page history of research. Mid-twentieth-century agreement with the biblical record gave way to skepticism decades later, which came to a middle position near the end of the century in view of the surge in Iron IA settlements. The scroll itself allows for a lengthy, complex settlement.From a source-critical approach, the scroll presupposes Deuteronomy/D (e.g., Josh 8:30–35) and Numbers/P, whereas reading through the lens of a Deuteronomistic Historian enables one to see Joshua as a type for Josiah. Still, places in the scroll evidence it “is going to move away from Deuteronomistic language” toward redaction even in the Second Temple period (p. 388).Goldingay divides the scroll into two main sections: 1:1–12:28 and 13:1–24:33, with subsections sometimes following the divisions of MT and sometimes those of LXX. Both sections begin with overviews. The first has a pattern of “problem-solution-aftermath” (p. 53). For example, Joshua takes Jericho (6:1–23) but then puts it to the ban (6:24–26). The introduction to the second half of the scroll begins with an outline of the allocation of the land and events of the main characters. Since a people’s self-understanding is informed by its location, the section is very important and is akin to “a land grant document” by Yahweh to Israel with Joshua “function[ing] as his prime minister in overseeing its distribution” (p. 265). Importantly, although God gave the land and Joshua distributed it, it was not entirely conquered. That process would continue (e.g., 13:13; 17:12–13), so the divine promise of the land was only partially fulfilled. The allocation by kinship groups, however, reinforced self-understanding and a sense of unity. It is also, theologically, “a study in salvation geography” (p. 339).Many chapter titles reflect Goldingay’s winsome idea that the scroll is an explanation of the events to subsequent readers (e.g., chapter 9: “How Joshua Fell for a Trick”). Chapters consist of an overview, annotated translation, commentary/interpretation, and theological reflection. The LXX features prominently in the notes to the translations, but one wishes that Goldingay would have offered more adjudication over the differences between the witnesses and versions. The volume ends with a robust bibliography followed by indexes of subject, author, and “Scripture and Other Ancient Writings.”For a book as thoroughly geographical as Joshua, it is regrettable that there are only two (anemic) maps. Discussion of the archeology, textual history, source criticism, and Deuteronomistic History is so brief as to leave some readers dissatisfied. Perhaps the greatest strength of this commentary is Goldingay’s interpretation of the violence in Joshua. While it is impossible to mollify completely modern unease with the violence in the scroll, Goldingay abates it and provides a more satisfactory response by setting the settlement in a universal context: “The regular process whereby peoples engage in migration, conflict, settlement, colonization, dispossession, and assimilation” is by no means unique to the Israelites under Joshua (p. 26). Indeed, his careful and insightful handling of the topic alone makes the volume a valuable resource.